FAIZABAD DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs Shiv Bhagwan

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 21.11.1992 passed by District Consumer Forum, Faizabad in Complaint Case No. 134/ 1992.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that there was an agreement between the complainant and the then Chairman, District Cooperative Bank Limited which took place on 10.8.1970. According to this agreement from September, 1970 to March, 1971 the photographs were to be taken by the complainant. THE complainant received running payment between these dates but the final payment has not been done so far. THE complainant also deposited a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as earnest money and Rs. 1,500/- as security money. The opposite party in its written version has admitted that agreement and it was also alleged that the running payment was also done in between. It was further alleged that the complainant has no right to sue. It is also alleged that the complaint is barred by time and complainant is not a consumer.

The learned District Forum after perusing the case of the parties, directed the appellant for payment of Rs. 24,043.50 as the amount due on account of photographs taken and directed for refund of Rs. 1,000/- as earnest money and Rs. 1,500/- as security money within a period of one month.

AGGRIEVED against this order, the appellant has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by learned District Forum. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. None was present from the other side even though the Counsel was informed on Service Postage Stamp. A perusal of the file will go to show that there was an agreement between the previous Chairman of the appellant and the complainant. The complainant was to take photographs during the period of agreement. A running payment was also made to the complainant. An objection has been raised by the appellant that the complainant is not a consumer. According to the grounds of appeal, there was no relationship of consumer between the parties. Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act defines a consumer. Unless a person hires the services of a person there could not be a relationship of consumer between them. The person who hires the services of other person can claim the compensation or the damages under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. In the present case, the Chairman had hired the services of the complainant. The complainant has not hired the services of the Chairman. When the Chairman hired the services of the complainant it was the Chairman who was a consumer and not the complainant whose services were hired. Therefore, it was not a case which could have been filed under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act as the complainant was not a consumer. In view of what has been said above, this is not a dispute which is covered under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, hence the complainant could not have filed this complaint. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be allowed and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the learned District Forum is set aside and complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to cost. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal allowed.